syamsu writes:
But tell me Agobat, do you in general obey the rule that you refer all questions about what ought and ought not to the spiritual? Making a clear distinction between is and ought, material and spiritual, or do you allow to mix it up?
Well it's hard to explain. My "religion" is closer to that of Einstein and Stephen Hawking as in:
"It is better not to use the word "god" to describe what I believe because most people use the word to mean a being with whom one can have a personal relationship. Stephen Hawking
In that sense and based on what i've learned from science I come to the conclusion that the spiritual emerged as a result of the interaction of homo sapiens with the environment. IMO about 40 000 years ago something mysterious took place, something that could only be explained by the intricate nature of the human mind - it was the first cave drawings. Art and
IMAGINATION were beginning to emerge, laying the foundations for the arrival of spirituality and religions. I don't think spirituality existed much before that time, say 100 000 BC. IMO, spirituality is just a human reaction to the environment. I am not basing my conclusions for the existence of a creator on faith, spiritual experiences, or dogma. If there is a creator, he wants to remain anonymous, he wouldn't reveal himself in any obvious ways to humans.
But then if by spiritual you also mean subjective as a human trait, i'd say science cannot and has no right to deal with certain categories like:
Is a ferrari 430 beautiful or not?
Is life meaningless or not?
Are bigger breasts more beautiful than smaller?
Does size matter?
Etc.
I don't use science all the time, i am human and science is not what's dictating my life.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein
™ Version 4.2
